Internet GovernanceRobin Gross2021-07-20T19:02:04+00:00
Internet governance venues in which IP Justice participates include: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Net Mundial, ITU World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
Amending ICANN's existing corporate bylaws to create a community veto process and a board recall mechanism could empower the ICANN community to over-see the direction of ICANN's board of directors. These bylaws revisions would greatly aid in the organization's effort to be accountable to the community it serves without requiring a radical re-organization of ICANN's legal structure.
A group of twenty-four civil society organizations and individuals today submitted a joint statement regarding a proposal from an ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) sub-group on the use of geographic names in top-level domains. The joint civil society statement cautioned against the adoption of the GAC proposal that would give governments veto power on domains that use geographic names. The submission stated that the proposal would threaten to chill freedom of expression and other lawful rights to use words in domain names, stifle innovation, and undermine the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance. The group also stated that the proposal is based on flawed presumptions of law and 'the public interest' and is entirely unworkable from a practical standpoint.
ALIGNING ICANN POLICY WITH PRIVACY RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERS September 5, 2014 - IGF Workshop from Istanbul, Turkey >> PRANASH PRAKASH: Shall we start? Good morning. Thank you for coming by for this panel on ICANN processes and privacy issues. My name is Pranash Prakash with the Yale Information Society [...]
Ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum - Istanbul, Turkey "Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multi-Stakeholder Governance" September 3, 2014 ICANN Accountability In A Multi-Stakeholder Governance Regime >> ROBIN GROSS: Hello everyone and welcome. My name is Robin Gross with IP Justice. I'm the organizer of this panel on [...]
Stand Up For Internet Freedom! Send a comment to ICANN to express your concern about the organization's radical proposal to hand control of the board of the directors over to governments. The Internet Needs You to Act Today!
This draconian proposal to change ICANN's bylaws would fundamentally transform ICANN away from being a "bottom-up" and "private-sector-led" organization and into a governmental regulatory agency by changing the GAC's role from "advisory" into "primary decision maker" by essentially creating a "governmental veto" on all key organizational decisions. This would mark a truly significant change in the overall power structure at ICANN that would dramatically empower national governments (some democratic, some authoritarian) over the management of critical Internet resources at the expense of those who participate in the bottom-up policy development process...
Q1. Why wasn't the community involved in the drafting of the staff plan? Q2. How does ICANN intend to handle the inherent conflict of interest with developing its own accountability plan? Q3. Why didn't ICANN invite proposals from the community? Q4. Why is there no public comment period on staff's plan? Q5. [...]
IP Justice Presents IGF 2014 Workshop #149: "Aligning ICANN Policy with Privacy Rights of Internet Users" Day 5 at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey 5 September 2014 ~ 11:00 am - 12:30 pm in Istanbul (other time zones) in Venue Workshop Room #6 at Lütfi Kirdar International Convention [...]
1. ICANN’s So-Called “Enhancing Accountability” Process After a long wait, ICANN’s senior management finally released its plan for “Enhancing Accountability” at the private California corporation that makes global Internet domain name policy. Unfortunately, the accountability deficit crisis created by ICANN’s longstanding policy of purely “self-policing” with no meaningful external accountability mechanisms [...]
IP Justice Presents IGF 2014 Workshop #23: "Accountability in the ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Governance Regime" at the 9th United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul, Turkey 3 September 2014 ~ 9:00 - 10:30 am in Istanbul (other time zones) in Venue Room #2 at Lütfi Kirdar International Convention and Exhibition Center (ICEC) [...]
What follows are a few 'big picture' thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level committee. Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement" that we as civil society should be proud [...]
NCSG Position on ICANN Board-Staff Violation of Corporate Bylaws by Imposing “TM+50 Policy” on GNSO 7 November 2013 Available as .pdf At the request of ICANN legal staff as per its Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP), the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) provides this further explanation of our complaint [...]
ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has filed a Request for Reconsideration with ICANN's Board of Directors regarding the staff's decision to expand the scope of the trademark claims service beyond that provided by community consensus policy and in contradiction to ICANN Bylaws.
At ICANNâ€™s 45th international meeting in Toronto in October 2012, ICANNâ€™s Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies sent a letter to ICANN to request that additional changes be made to the policies for new top-level domain names. Despite the fact that the current policy had been long finalized via a painstakingly arduous consensus process in which all stakeholders compromised and ultimately reached unanimous agreement, nonetheless the IPC and BC sent a letter to Fadi Chehade, the new CEO, and the ICANN Board of Directors with 8-points for consideration and policy modification. Many of these points were the same requests the intellectual property/ business community has made before. Unfortunately, the key aspects of most of the 8-points sought to re-open previously closed agreements. Further, most of the points proposed policy changes, rather than merely clarifying technical implementation details.